Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

207 F.2d 66

Docket No. 13629.

De Normand v. Swope

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Aug. 6, 1953.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1953-08-06

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 1957

5 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Jones v. Squier

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1953-08-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1A. J. Zirpoli, San Francisco, Cal., Kingdon deNormand, Alcatraz, Cal., in pro. per., for appellant.

¶2Chauneey Tramutolo, U. S. Atty., Joseph Karesh, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Calif., for appellee.

¶3Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and HEALY and BONE, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, dismissing an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a federal prisoner.

¶6The question presented is whether a federal prisoner may seek a writ of ha-beas corpus in the federal courts after an application for Section 2255 relief has been denied on the merits.

¶7DeNormand was convicted on March 16, 1944, on nine counts of theft from interstate commerce and of conspiracy to commit same and received sentences totaling seventeen years in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was denied in November, 1949. DeNormand’s attempt to appeal from such denial failed because no final order had been entered by the district court. The final order was entered after the application for the writ had been made below. No attempt was made to appeal from this final order. There is no showing of facts that § 2255 was inadequate and ineffective to render him relief by motion for rehearing or other relief or by appeal.

¶8Where relief had been denied upon such a Section 2255 motion, a district court is without jurisdiction to entertain a federal prisoner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. Jones v. Squier, 9 Cir., 195 F.2d 179.

¶9The judgment is affirmed.

/207/f2d/66 · .json · Public domain